Author Topic: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX  (Read 22990 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32614
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11450
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #20 on: 07/01/2015 10:38 pm »
Ok we can rail against technical illiteracy and innumeracy media, the government, the public, but it is within our power to do something about it too. As was done with the crowd sourced video repair, we could, as a group use NSF to co-ordinate a campaign to provide mainstream media with a more accurate picture of what is going on. This would have to be done without rancour or derision.

Or favoritism.  There are many organizations and companies involved in spaceflight.   Just like pop music tends to over shadows other good and relevant musicians, there is no need to focus on current "pop" company exclusively.*


*I have a had a distain for pop radio/music,  going back to my teens.  AOR was my choice.  I bought LP and cassettes and not 45's and 8 tracks.  I got my first CD player in 83.  My current choice is ripping concert DVD/Blurays.

I couldn't agree more Jim, and I specifically want to point out that attitudes like this:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37902.msg1398452#msg1398452


are not what is needed in this effort

However just because one is a fan doesn't mean that you are going to riot against the other team (soccer, rugby, hockey) or have armed and violent clashes with groups who have different tastes in music and vehicles (mods and rockers). I do think the group of people who would want to participate in an activity to correct and clarify misreporting of SpaceX in the media would be far larger than the one volunteering for ULA. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do either.


The party threads don't help either.  They are much like threads on pop star forums, where girls profess their love for boyband member.
« Last Edit: 07/01/2015 10:40 pm by Jim »

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #21 on: 07/01/2015 10:39 pm »
Joe average doesn't even know SpaceX exists and likely won't till they do something really headline-grabbing.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32614
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11450
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #22 on: 07/01/2015 10:44 pm »
Joe average doesn't even know SpaceX exists

quite the opposite. Spacex Q score is higher that ULA or OSC's.  It's "Spacex, oh aren't they the one trying to land a rocket somewhere?"  Where as ULA and OSC are overshadowed by NASA and the USAF for launches.

Offline nadreck

Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #23 on: 07/01/2015 10:54 pm »

The party threads don't help either.  They are much like threads on pop star forums, where girls profess their love for boyband member.

I disagree there, the party threads here (and on other sites) are about the fan base and by the fan base. I was speaking about the main stream media and that in correcting it, dealing with it, those of us who are enthusiasts for this whole area, need to take that sentiment out and simply try to bring people to a neutral truth rather than an enthusiastic support of something.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 757
  • Likes Given: 627
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #24 on: 07/01/2015 11:24 pm »

The party threads don't help either.  They are much like threads on pop star forums, where girls profess their love for boyband member.

Now I've been on music fansite forums (I'm also a music fan) and I've been on NSF, the fanpersoning in both sites are of very different breeds.

Quite often music fans do not have a driven understanding of how their favourite subgenre of music works mechanically, and indeed, a drive to understand why something works is not all that critical to Joe average music fan.

Rocketry requires a more in-depth awareness as to how rocketry functions in order to be enjoyable - the differences between various LVs and their functions are more subtle to the untrained eye and ear (and thus, require a greater degree of specialisation) than those between a Classical piano trio and 'The Jimi Hendrix Experience', despite both music and aerospace being fields dominated by small pockets of none-mainstream experts, who devote their entire academic and practical working lives to their craft. People who find rocketry interesting; who may be fans, but the majority of who are not going to be experts like yourself, are fairly likely to know than an orbit is not an altitude, for example, what on earth the symbol Δv stands for, along with other basic rudiments. Yet being more informed about an individual field is not necessarily a ground for objectivity.

I adore baroque music, but can't stand Handel, especially vocal music by Handel. Now Handel was an extremely competent composer who was praised for his competence, but he is not what gets me up in the morning, simple as. I am not a Handel fanperson, I am a Zelenka fanperson. The fact I know a considerable amount about Handel's music changes nothing - his music is not the part of the field I find worthy of personal study.

SpaceX is my Zelenka when it comes to aerospace, and yes, I do treat it with favouritism. This favouritism isn't necessarily deserved - ULA, OrbitalATK and Arianespace are all great companies and I do avidly read up on what they do, but they're not the most delicious chocolate on the tray for me. SpaceX sparked my fascination with aerospace, simply because (as you have mentioned), SpaceX has a big Q score and that suckered me in - this is no bad thing, they are poster boys for the industry because of it, and get the public caring about it and by extension Space in general and NASA (and some of that public pays US taxes).

I reserve favouritism for Zelenka because his use of counterpoint interests me heavily. I reserve favouritism for SpaceX because their mission statement is highly desirable to me and compatible with the sort of events I believe should be rightfully happening in this century.  This is no bad thing, everybody has there own team they are rooting for: there are people rooting for ULA because they do a darn' good job of getting satellites for the US defence sector up into their target orbits, have for a long time, and will continue to do so for a long time. That is an invaluable role nobody else is sufficiently qualified to equal them in. Yet there will always be things that tantalise people (and thus, galvanise curiosity) more than others.

Remember, mankind only landed on the moon because two superpowers and a great number of smaller nations played favourites against each other - favouritism is entirely in the spirit of enterprise and can occur in well informed individuals without distorting the truth. Spin doctoring isn't a predicate of favouritism.
 
« Last Edit: 07/01/2015 11:27 pm by The Amazing Catstronaut »
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #25 on: 07/01/2015 11:56 pm »
I don't think the average person is interested in spaceflight period! They seem to be more interested in their person gadgets like getting the newest cell phone ect. Tech is turning inward toward personal usage. That said, I think the public in a vague way supports spaceflight in general. Most have no clue though. A subject like GPS comes up and I tell my friends their GPS bearings comes from satellites and they had no idea. Technology usage with any knowledge of how it works.

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #26 on: 07/01/2015 11:58 pm »
Joe average doesn't even know SpaceX exists

quite the opposite. Spacex Q score is higher that ULA or OSC's.  It's "Spacex, oh aren't they the one trying to land a rocket somewhere?"  Where as ULA and OSC are overshadowed by NASA and the USAF for launches.

It is not that ULA and OSC are overshadowed.  It's that they are not doing anything interesting.  They have been around for a long time doing exactly what they are doing now. 

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 620
  • United States
  • Liked: 477
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #27 on: 07/02/2015 12:15 am »
It's that they are not doing anything interesting.  They have been around for a long time doing exactly what they are doing now.

Designing missions to 1, 2, and 3-burn LEOs, 2-burn GTO's long and short coast, 3-burn GTOs, GSO's, 2 and 3-burn to GPS orbit, missions to the moon, Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, asteroids, Molniya orbits, de-orbit burns of the upper stages, all with about 15 different launch vehicle configurations.
This is not doing anything interesting??
Currently working on a new launch vehicle.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6713
  • Liked: 1106
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #28 on: 07/02/2015 12:19 am »
Joe average doesn't even know SpaceX exists

quite the opposite. Spacex Q score is higher that ULA or OSC's.  It's "Spacex, oh aren't they the one trying to land a rocket somewhere?"  Where as ULA and OSC are overshadowed by NASA and the USAF for launches.

It is not that ULA and OSC are overshadowed.  It's that they are not doing anything interesting.  They have been around for a long time doing exactly what they are doing now. 

ULA has, what, 95 mission successes in a row?  (I'm not sure of the exact number, but it's close to that).

Failures are undoubtedly more interesting, but I'll take uninteresting successes any day.  Especially right now when the ISS could really use supplies.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32614
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11450
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #29 on: 07/02/2015 01:08 am »

It is not that ULA and OSC are overshadowed.  It's that they are not doing anything interesting.  They have been around for a long time doing exactly what they are doing now. 

MSL, MER, Dawn, PNH, etc were all launched by ULA or the parents

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #30 on: 07/02/2015 01:24 am »
I think you and I have a different idea of who constitutes Joe Average.


The party threads don't help either.  They are much like threads on pop star forums, where girls profess their love for boyband member.

I disagree there, the party threads here (and on other sites) are about the fan base and by the fan base. I was speaking about the main stream media and that in correcting it, dealing with it, those of us who are enthusiasts for this whole area, need to take that sentiment out and simply try to bring people to a neutral truth rather than an enthusiastic support of something.

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 831
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 142
  • Likes Given: 422
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #31 on: 07/02/2015 01:30 am »
The party threads don't help either.  They are much like threads on pop star forums, where girls profess their love for boyband member.
I don't spend enough time on pop star forums professing my love for boyband members to be able to fairly compare the two, but I generally don't find the party threads to fit that description. They more resemble live threads for sports and other live events elsewhere, with participants joking and generally hoping things turn out well in a manner similar to how people intact at such events in person.

Offline nadreck

Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #32 on: 07/02/2015 01:34 am »
I think you and I have a different idea of who constitutes Joe Average.

Undoubtedly, but I am quite intrigued by how what you quoted is related to that statement. I was speaking about media and the enthusiasts here, not Joe Average, in the quote you posted.

Also, as a personal preference I prefer naming the stereotypical American male as 'Joe Sixpack' and the typical American female as 'Molly Treehugger' it harkens back to my days on the space and SF forums of compuserve, then later on some Usenet groups including the one Henry Spencer moderated.



The party threads don't help either.  They are much like threads on pop star forums, where girls profess their love for boyband member.

I disagree there, the party threads here (and on other sites) are about the fan base and by the fan base. I was speaking about the main stream media and that in correcting it, dealing with it, those of us who are enthusiasts for this whole area, need to take that sentiment out and simply try to bring people to a neutral truth rather than an enthusiastic support of something.
« Last Edit: 07/02/2015 01:35 am by nadreck »
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 897
  • Liked: 630
  • Likes Given: 1694
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #33 on: 07/02/2015 03:26 am »
If you don't like the party, stay out of the Frat House.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1253
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 326
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #34 on: 07/02/2015 04:04 am »
Most people aren't very interested in space. I think Jim is right that SpaceX is likely better known than anybody else, that just makes it the least obscure.

In the origin story of SpaceX which has been repeated more than usual lately because of the Musk biography, Elon had 180 million burning a hole in his pocket and wanted to do something to revive interest in space. After looking at the NASA website and googling around he was shocked to find that there was no real NASA plan to go to Mars.

This is not "Joe Average", this is Elon Musk of the Pay Pal (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). less than 15 years ago. He's in his late 20's. He's a nerdy sci fi fan. He spent his whole youth reading. He has no idea what's actually going on in manned space other than that they launch Space Shuttles pretty often. He's got a physics degree from an Ivy League school and he certainly could understand the field but he hasn't paid it much attention.

If Elon hadn't paid it much attention it suggests something about how much attention Joe pays to it.

When he eventually decides to start SpaceX and build rockets himself it's because he's come to 2 conclusions. One is that the problem is not that the public isn't sufficiently inspired or informed, it's that getting into Space is simply too expensive. The second is that in terms of the "first principles" there's no fundamental reason it has to be too expensive.
« Last Edit: 07/02/2015 04:14 am by Ludus »

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6015
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 2520
  • Likes Given: 1897
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #35 on: 07/02/2015 04:30 am »
Here is one very poor example and NHK used the same on their world news segment on Sunday

http://www.techworm.net/2015/06/spacex-explodes-after-take-off.html
Tony De La Rosa

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6015
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 2520
  • Likes Given: 1897
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #36 on: 07/02/2015 04:33 am »
Tony De La Rosa

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9036
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6362
  • Likes Given: 2194
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #37 on: 07/02/2015 06:39 am »
Joe average doesn't even know SpaceX exists

quite the opposite. Spacex Q score is higher that ULA or OSC's.  It's "Spacex, oh aren't they the one trying to land a rocket somewhere?"  Where as ULA and OSC are overshadowed by NASA and the USAF for launches.
Depends what country you're in. At this side of the big pond most people have never heard of SpaceX or ULA, let alone OSC. They have heard of Tesla and NASA though.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4115
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 718
  • Likes Given: 163
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #38 on: 07/02/2015 06:52 am »
Here is one very poor example and NHK used the same on their world news segment on Sunday

http://www.techworm.net/2015/06/spacex-explodes-after-take-off.html
"ZOMG LIKE IT TOTALLY EXPLODED GUYS AND NOW NOW DEM CONGRESS PEOPLE THEY ARE FOR SURE GONNA CUT IT. THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS  [insert political hack comment here] B-B-BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POLLIIITTTTICCS FROM THIS AM I RIGHT?"

This is why MSM is trash. The blogosphere tabloidy/clickbait clones of MSM are even worse that site being a prime example. See gawker and its subsidiaries for more examples if you want to see just how low these people can go.
Disgusting trash.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline rickyramjet

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Killeen, TX
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: How Joe Average Perceives SpaceX
« Reply #39 on: 07/02/2015 03:26 pm »
MSM is in business to make money.  They make money by getting ad hits.  Period.  How do they do that?  By writing articles that grab people's attention.  Mostly stupid, pointless, inaccurate articles with distorted shocking titles.  All they care about is making money.  Just ignore it, filter them out.   This is the way it's always been, right back to the very first printed newspaper that had the first ad in it!!  Case in point: theonion.com.  The articles are blatantly preposterous, yet they are making money doing it.

So, if you want your kids to be smart and to be able to think, then that's your job, no one else's.

As far as average Joe goes, he is part of the bell curve distribution of types of people on planet Earth.  If the bell curve is showing the percentage of people that can connect facts with knowledge and come to a valid conclusions I suspect the bell curve chart is an extremely narrow spike.  However without the teeming masses of average Joe, there would be no market for all the consumer products (high and low tech) that allows tech and the need for it to advance.  It behooves the tech world to keep finding gadgets (and advancing the tech) for Joe.  Joe contributes to advancing technology without realizing it!

I say it doesn't really matter if average Joe knows much about space, to him it's entertainment.  Something different to occasionally hear about in his everyday life.  Don't get me wrong.. I'm not dissing average Joe, some of the most amazing and beautiful things come from people that don't have a clue (or care) how things work.  Average Joe is just as important an any other human.

The only thing that matters to most of us is if the folks that fund space keep believing it's important and necessary!!  If you can convince a Congressperson that funding a warp drive space craft will bring money to his or her state, you're good to go!!

Anyway, just my 2 cents on the matter!   :)  Meant as lighthearted comment!

Tags: